Ships Nostalgia banner

The New Carriers

39K views 181 replies 50 participants last post by  wigger 
#1 ·
The dialogue on retaking the Falklands touched on the issue of the new carriers. It is academic now but personally, I think they are white elephants. A post empire gesture by the attention seeking Tony Blair. When is the RN ever going to be involved in a serious military operation without American support? Many of us remember the Suez shambles. Far more likely that we will be supporting them. At a time when the RN is being run down to virtually nothing they really do seem to be taking up an inordinate amount of the naval budget while crewing them will not be simple. Not only in terms of sheer 'peoplepower' but also training those people given the gap between the end of the Invincibles and the advent of the new ships. It might be argued that they maintain naval shipbuilding skills around the country but we do not need to be building such huge units to do this. What do others think? Is there any compelling arguament for them? As I say, almost an irrelevant discussion now but..
 
#32 ·
You don't maintain ships of that sort for the purpose of dealing with current, expected military contingencies, but for the purpose of dealing with future, unexpected military contingencies. If you wait until you actually need such ships before you begin to build them, then it will be too late.
^^^This^^^

It is the exact same reason that airline pilots are not paid big money to fly the planes. They are paid big money to know what to do when everything goes pear-shape...
 
#37 ·
We can only hope Louis that while the "gobby" Hilary Clinton is providing the rhetoric to the South American's we have a committed Anglophile like Casper Weinberger in the present American Government as it was on his permission we were allowed to "raid" their stock's of military equipment. God Bless him(Applause)(Applause)(Applause) and of course Reagan.
 
#38 ·
Totally agree Chadburn. Unfortuately the average uninformed punter either doesn't know or couldn't give a proverbial - it's all me me me these days - don't care as long as I get my i-pod. This is what we have spawned I'm sad to say.


LouisB. (Scribe)
 
#40 · (Edited)
It appears that the whole thing is on hold - somebody has quoted performance figures and maintanence costs from each aircraft and found the STOVL lacking in certain things - others deny that this is the case. Meanwhile the shipbuilders have reached the stage of having to know what to build for.

Type 45's as well have been built to a strictly cost saving spec. Could have been somewhat more potent and flexible in available missile types for the same hull layout - also last minute fitting of Phalanx 1B. Somebody with a bit of warship knowledge must have suddenly twigged !

The whole thing, carriers and type 45's seem to have a slightly Alice in Wonderland feel about the forward planning and last minute realisations of what is required.


LouisB. (Scribe)
 
#46 ·
The maths are quite simple, unfortunatley its not only the polititions who are causing confusion, the RAF remain anti carrier, the thought of the FAA returning to full strike capability and deploying world wide worries them, they feel threatened hence the fantastic PR machine they maintain feeding posion against Naval aviation, it was the RAF who insisted that the FAA Harrier FRS2was scrapped ahead of the creation of the joint Harrier wing equipped with only the GR7/9, hence we lost our fleet defence & fighter long before the present harriers were sold, at the time even the US attempted to stop the FRS 2 scrapping all to no avail, The RAF convinced the politians of the day that the GR7/9 was sufficent to act as a fleet fighter / strike aircarft.
As for the F35, well the C variant is superiour in all aspects, larger range, loiter time, weapon load and airframe strength. The F35B is more expensive, slower, more fragile and still has serious doubts about the engine / lift reliability, yes it can operate from smaller decks and land vertically however it is far more complex. The big issue here is why it costs so much to fit catapults and arrester gear as the carriers were designed for it however not initially intended for it to be fitted. Both carriers are still in build stage without the flight deck even constructed, surely it cannot cost 2 Billion to alter the build at this early stage? the Electro magnetic catapulkty system has been designed and is presently under test in the states, so again there is less R&D required.
 
#49 · (Edited)
It seems that there is some underlying and powerful political interference going on to sway decisions that had been made. If we end up with a carrier/s with aircraft that will not do the job required fully or will not stand up to the rigours of maritime operation then it should be openly and publicly stated by the Government commitee responsible.

If on the other hand the whole carrier concept - including the best suited aircraft - is beyond affordability then that also should be publicly stated. The alternative is that we end up with totally unsuitable kit that has cost a fortune and could help bankrupt the country with no real military or strategic gain. It's no good going to a wedding in your best suit if the backside of your trousers is hanging out.



LouisB. (Scribe)
 
#53 ·
I think the carriers will go into service with what aircraft is up in the air if you believe what the papers say (i dont) .WE do need a carrier force (do you want us to be a gunboat nation)but it wants handling properly not like these clowns are doing.Where does blair come into it ????. it was browns labour party who ordered the carrirs .I also think when the time comes the royal Navy will get there men and they will recieve the best training in the world as far as any british foce goes.Such big units (thats a laugh) they are not a spec on such as the american carriers.There is a very good reason to have a carrier task group if not three groups or even more but we all know that wont happen They already decided on that when the cut the daring back by six to six
 
#55 ·
The problem with the flightdecks is that they are different depending on what variant of aircraft use them! If they are vertical take-off they have a ski jump. If they use a cataupult they are flat! Now that the building is well underway, I just wish they'd make their minds up before they have to alter what they've already built and wasting millions of £'s in the process
 
#57 ·
WHY O WHY COULDN,T THEY JUST HAVE UPGRADED ANDMODERNISED THE CARRIERS THEY HAD SURELY IT WOULD HAVE COST LESS AND STILL SECURED JOBSMAYBE ITS TIME TO PUT THEASE DECISIONS TOTHE BRITISH PEOPLE AS OPPOSED TO MPs WHO HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEIR DOING MOST OF THE TIME UNLESS ITs FIDDLING THEIR EXPENSES
 
#58 ·
coz their structural steel was rotten
 
#60 ·
New Carriers

These ships are white elephants. Blair and his mates wanted to cosy up to Bush and co while the Admirals had visions of the time when we had a proper Navy. We are never going to be in a war situation without the Americans so what really was the point? A few basic questions? How will we crew them? What planes will they fly - all still in the future? What will we have to defend them? The surface fleet has been decimated while the submarine fleet will be the boomers and a few Astutes. The Ts are passing their sell by date. No wonder the Argies are getting restless again. Would you really send one of these carriers down there? The ramifications if one was damaged or sunk?
 
#67 · (Edited)
I was always under the impression that the type 45's were the defined carrier escort vessels, together with whatever ASW vessels were to hand, plus, and more importantly sonar equipped helicopters - of course, I may be wrong. The only thing missing from what I can see are the Carriers - everything else is available. All active elements of the fleet train with data stream connected weapons systems and ASW interfaces either available now or by the time the carriers are commissioned. Most defence sites would agree with this, apart from the fact that the type 45's could have been somewhat more flexible with their missile fit.



LouisB (Scribe)
 
#63 ·
(Cloud)part of the problem is that defence companies have better lawyers than the government and the contracts are written with so many pennalty clauses they make money every with every change and even MORE WITH CANCELLATION,so WE WILL END UP WITH F35 even if it never goes to sea(MAD)
 
#64 ·
This is because the MoD and Armed Forces have never learned the Golden Rule......................

"The Answer is in the Contract"

of course no contractor in their right mind would take on a defense contract without very robust contractual protection
 
#71 · (Edited)
YES! If it means publicity, and letting Joe Blow out there know that the Crabs are not the only ones defending the UK and the Olympics. Publicity would make any potential terrorists think twice before doing anything.
Keeping quiet would lull them into thinking an attack would be plausible.
That is why I think 'stealth' warships are an oxymoron. If I was a pirate, and saw a bloody great blob on the radar moving at 30 knots, I would steer away. If I saw a small blob moving at 30 knots, I would eitehr ignore it and attack, or assume it was another small pirate boat, and still attack.
As an Ammerican President once said......"Walk softly, but carry a big stick".
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top